• Absolutely, positively n-yes!

    I'm only 12, but I understand a lot about this world. If everyone was supposed to be created equal, why do others have a lot but others don't? Everyone deserves something, but some people ruin the balance. If you have the money, why not give some to help others? Technically, money isn't even a thing. It's just a piece of paper or a slab of metal that we call "money." It has no real value. So, by helping others, you aren't really doing anything to affect yourselves. Solved.

  • Because they are in desperate need of help.

    I think that rich nations should help the poor nations because if someone desperately needs clothes, food or drink then they should get it. Also imagine if you were living in Africa, and you were poor and in poverty. If that doesn't help then think of the poor little children walking at least 15 miles just to get some water, or think of the poor mums and dads not eating anything just so that they can give food and water to their children when we take everything we have for granted.

  • Absolutely but.

    They need to be much more specific as to what the money will go for and follow up to be sure it was spent correctly. Plus tying the $$$ to "correct" political policy towards their own people in the area of human rights as well as world affairs should be a must as well. In other words no more money for Democratic Islamic peoples republic of's or just writing blank checks with 7 or 8 zero's.

  • Yes, we need to support our fellow human beings!

    The money can assist and support these people obtain very basic human needs that many of us take for granted. I agree sometimes money can get lost through corrupt governments but it is our duty to help as best we can. We would want the same in their position. We all just want a easier life.

  • Because it does help them in a long term.

    Well, not just the food, water and money, also education, jobs, and health care. The people can benefit from it and, in the future, help the others from suffering. This topic doesn't just mean to give basic necessities (short term) but also education (long term) to help them save themselves without aid.

  • I agree with the idea that rich countries should lend aids to poor countries.

    The first advantage of this aid is to support poor countries in implementing large projects. Without a lot of money, poor countries can not build big schools, hospitals, entertainment areas or roads.
    The second disadvantage of this habit is to give burden for later generations
    it is, thirdly, believed that poor countries may lost their freedom

  • Absolutely mega YES

    Because if we were the poor country, WE would like help and WE would except it from other countries. What sort of person says NO to saving a life billions of them. In fact, it is immoral to deny someone a chance to be happy and anyone who disagrees should be ashamed of themselves.

  • Its not their fault that they are poor

    We are lucky enough to be born in a country with such benefits but people who live in LEDC's have no choice that they were born poor, we should be helping them out! Why be selfish when you have more than enough to support your country? Be generous and save lives, these are families with children we are talking about. Now I am only in high school but we have been learning about this in geography and frankly I don't even know how you can debate this issue. I believe it is a one answer question... YES!

  • Its helping peoples lives forever and will stop all the arguments with countries if we all help one bit each time

    If people have the money to help out then they should if I'm honest. I definitely support charity events where the money is going to poorer countries because its helping pay for their vital needs, which are; food, water, health care, education and shelter. Therefore people should help out in charity events to make the world a better place to live in.

  • Yes, I support aid to poor nations

    A lot of people are dying around the world at a fast rate simply because other countries don't have the same resources as we do. In this case, it's money = Food & clothes! In my opinion, I think that for a world to be fair, we must be fair to others.

  • There should be no obligation(unless for specific reasons)

    I am from a nation that is both a Aid donor and an Aid receiver. Personally I do not think that any nation must be obliged to support any less fortunate nation, as this is merely a tax on first world nations for being.... first world. It is up to the people of certain nations to determine if they would like to help another, If they are not willing to help, it would be unfair to say that they should be pressured into helping a nation that has most likely been ruined by its own blunders, and not that of other nations. BUT (in the cases of many colonial nations), It must be accepted that these nations had a role to play in the general destruction of many countries they colonized, and therefore their responsibility of them to help out for a certain time period(maybe 50 years?) as then the reason for the ruining of a certain country, was not in the people of that nations hand, but of another(Such as the British Colonies, and Invasions lead by Western forces in Iraq and those regions). Otherwise I see no reason for a wealthy nation to be oblige to help another just because the other cannot look after themselves. Why must we help Somalia when they have managed to dig the hole they fell into?

  • Why get deeper in debt?

    America's debt rates are already so high, we should be worrying about our own problems, and not bothered by other people's problems. It is there own fault for getting themselves in the state they are in. Just like the fable with the grashopper and the ant, and ant worked hard and collected its food for the winter, and the grasshopper wasted time all summer and starved in the winter. Common sense, duh.

  • why should it be that way?

    I don't think it is a good idea or these rich nations to help poor nations, because when we look at the economies today, most the income in poor countries is taken by foreign people such as US. Beside the Aid to poor nations is not given for free, there are some agreements made, and these rich nations convince the poor nations in such a way that they get back their half of the Aid. I don't think this Aid should continue because they are just brining more problems and sufferings to the people around. In addition, rich nations have got an advantage over poor nations because they have low systems of decision making.

  • They become too reliant on rich countries for aid

    If too much aid is given, the country will rely to much on developed and rich countries for aid. They will not be able to help themselves if the aid-providing country stops providing aid. They will become too dependent and won't be able to help themselves if they ever need to. Aid should only be provided if there has been a serious disaster like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption.

  • We make things worse by subsidizing weaker nations

    The survival of the fittest is a proper tool for nation building. If nations are granted money and supplies without providing services or trade to those giving it creates an artificial environment which is not sustainable. Thus the weak nation continues to demand more and more of the rest of the world to survive. Gaza is a perfect example of this. This latest war is another example of how they act to get more attention.

  • Corruption

    Giving money to foreign nations is not helpful. In many times, it just goes to building up military forces overseas and subsidizing death and devastation. Many times this money just goes to the wealthy people who run the gov't themselves and don't see the gov't. In the end, it's corrupt and useless, and harmful (many Pakistanis and Egyptians are opposed to US foreign aid to them). However, food aid such as corn or wheat shipments are beneficial, as they are often used to help real people in need in other countries.

  • No.

    A nation cannot have wealth except through theft from its citizens. Therefore, to help a poor nation it would have to rob its own people.

  • It depends on the context of "rich".

    Unless an economy is prospering without a deficit and debt, giving aid is blessing other countries with your wealth. In the current state of all the countries though, no aid should come unless disaster has struck such as the Haiti incident.

  • Nope...

    The international realm is anarchic. Thus, there is no responsibility for rich nations to give aid to poor nations. They can if they want, but they do not have to...

  • Kidding right?

    The whole system of "money" and wealth is completely imaginary and only maintained by a system of global world leaders and used to keep people as slaves of authority. I think nations in poverty should help themselves with the means of their land's natural resources. It's called responsibility and intelligence. Don't build on the coast where hurricanes often hit every 5 years. Don't enslave our people. Don't be an enslaved people. When enslaved don't live that way, die trying to win freedom. Take the power from those who use you. Don't be an enabler. Secondly our country is no better. If you evened out the value of our dollar with everyone else's dollar (easily possible if you consider 100 years or less into the future with America losing manufacturing production jobs)... we are just as practically just as bad off. The answer is less spending and less aide and more national economic responsibility. But this will never work because the government controls the media and the schools and the government is controlled by those who own the businesses and national banks and they like having us as slaves.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.